Choosing a career

[ade]

Unfortunately a "homo universalis" is extinct since the rennaissance. You need indept knowledge and experience in a certain area, you can't be a rockstar in all fields of life.

Yes, but arguably one's undergrad is not (and should not) be the time & place to specialize.  Pick a field of study (I'd recommend EECS if that's what interest you) but cast a wide net, as above.  As an undergrad one has the luxury to learn a variety of subjects.   That luxury might not come again for a very long time!!

Specialize later on, either in the workplace, and/or through a Masters program, etc.   Many companies offer new graduates a "rotation" program where you get to work in different areas during your first year.  That would be a fantastic way to start a career.

Otherwise, one might as well get vocational training, get a job as a technician, and go on from there.   That's a fine path as well. 

Just don't stop learning.

[tggzzz]

I have yet a different take.  Don't try to predict the future.  Don't worry about any job revolution, and definitely don't look at Gartner et al to give you direction on what's coming (they don't know).

Instead, use your time at university to build solid fundamentals.  Cast a very wide net... not just of math, physics, chemistry, comp sci, circuits, etc., but also literature, music, sociology, business, or whatever else interests you.

Then you don't have to care about the changes which are coming because you have the foundation to go anywhere.

This is the big difference between the university system and the vocational school system (such as a technical college).  In a vocational program you learn skills and technologies which may be directly applicable to particular job descriptions, but those skills and job descriptions may become obsolete.

In a university program, you build fundamentals through liberal education.  You learn not to fit yourself to any particular career or job description, but so you can adapt to whatever opportunities may come in the future.

That is sound advice.

I would add that it is highly beneficial to demonstrate that you have put such theoretical knowledge to practical use. That means doing a project in your own time, which also has the advantages that you will learn lots (i.e. make mistakes!), demonstrates that you are interested in the job and are not just a time-server, and gives the interviewer something to talk about (not to be underestimated!).

"Doing a project" = choose, define, architect, implement, test - and be able to say what you will do better next time.

[tggzzz]

Unfortunately a "homo universalis" is extinct since the rennaissance. You need indept knowledge and experience in a certain area, you can't be a rockstar in all fields of life.

If you specialise too soon then you are creating your own obsolescence.

Often - but not always - you have to specialise in your job. You shouldn't be doing that during a first degree.

[Alexei.Polkhanov]

I am not sure if a person who started the thread still interested in it 

I can see two distinct groups of people who are posting suggestions here. One group understood "having a career" to be in category of "having a job and be happy with it" which is at level 2 (from the bottom) in hierarchy. Another group of people understand it as "having a Career" as something of an achievement, creativity, respect and recognition which is at the top of pyramid. Obviously these are two completely different things. Job != Career.

[tszaboo]

I am not sure if a person who started the thread still interested in it 

I can see two distinct groups of people who are posting suggestions here. One group understood "having a career" to be in category of "having a job and be happy with it" which is at level 2 (from the bottom) in hierarchy. Another group of people understand it as "having a Career" as something of an achievement, creativity, respect and recognition which is at the top of pyramid. Obviously these are two completely different things. Job != Career.

IDK, I usually dont get sex at work. 
I know that self realization and satisfaction with the job would be a very important part of my life, but no matter where I turn, I dont get those. Right now, I'm working with a bunch of untalented people, a greedy and cheap management, and I cannot have a side project at work. I had bore-out, not burn out. This will go on for another two weeks when I stand up and start working somewhere else. I had the carrot hanging in front of my nose for at least two years now. We could have made world class billion dollar projects, which I would have been proud of, even though management would have screwed it up completely. And honestly, I have no way to vent my frustration.

[cobbler]

I think it is good idea to never talk about any sidejobs because it will usually lead to resentment and mistrust. Once you start working somewhere for a little while ask if you can telecommute a few days a week.

Then a month or two later request  full time telecommute.

Then you can start double or triple dipping (working two or three fulltime jobs simultaneously).

It is so easy to do when 99.9 of technical work is waiting on other people... and the few times you do need to really work you can do it 10x faster than everybody else.

[MrSlack]

+1 for that. Done that for years.

[ECEdesign]

Actually sounds like a pretty good gig 

I think it is good idea to never talk about any sidejobs because it will usually lead to resentment and mistrust. Once you start working somewhere for a little while ask if you can telecommute a few days a week.

Then a month or two later request  full time telecommute.

Then you can start double or triple dipping (working two or three fulltime jobs simultaneously).

It is so easy to do when 99.9 of technical work is waiting on other people... and the few times you do need to really work you can do it 10x faster than everybody else.

[vodka]

I don't believe that  the malsow's pyramide can apply in this context.  When originally the malsow pyramide was a study of how motive to workers for increasing the productivity in the factories.

Today , I don't see the logic from the malsow and i see very simplistic, because a people can to be at high the pyramide and he haven't properties neither job.

And opposite case , a people has a stable job  and very fine relation with his environment(friends and familiars), but he is a survival situation.

Paradox,the person is in three level at same time(3 level, 2 level and 1 level).

[Kjelt]

I don't believe that  the malsow's pyramide can apply in this context. 

It's Maslow.

When originally the malsow pyramide was a study of how motive to workers for increasing the productivity in the factories.

No that was Taylor

Today , I don't see the logic from the malsow and i see very simplistic, because a people can to be at high the pyramide and he haven't properties neither job.

Than you don't understand the Maslow theory, first of all Maslow never used a pyramid, he used levels. And he never said that you can not have some of the conditions on one of the higher levels without having all of the lower level. He just says that a human being is more motivated to complete the lower levels before reaching the higher levels. It is about motivation!

Paradox,the person is in three level at same time(3 level, 2 level and 1 level).

That is just as Maslow states, you are motivated to reach to achieve a higher level after (partially) succeeding in the lower,
You are probably less thinking about being respected by someone else (level 4) when you are having hunger living on the street in a warzone and can be killed any hour of the day (level 1 and 2 not met).
But as anyone knows, a war hero could well be in that situation but if he had a choice he probably would rather end the war, and have a good meal